The public trusts scientists—but not their conclusions

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/07/public-trusts-scientists-not-their-conclusions.ars

by pjdavis • 17 years ago

15 20 17 years ago

gizmo3• 17 years ago

> Eighty-four percent of the public thinks that science has had a positive impact on society

And the remaining 16% thinks we are not better off because of electricity, medicine and buildings & bridges that don't collapse?

People who think science is optional in any society have not realized our entire lifestyle has been made possible by science.

Locke16892• 17 years ago

I honestly think that the only possible reason for this has to be either ignorance or religion. If you demonize one section of science far enough, you're probably self-indoctrinated to believe that all science is bad. Consider someone who believes that climate change is not happening and that the entire scientific community is in on this giant scam. Once you extend a conspiracy theory to such a large level, the only way you can rationalize your beliefs is to demonize the entire population of practicing scientists because they have to be "in on it." Of course, were you to then be asked if science has been a good thing, you'll answer in the negative, even though you would never survive without air conditioning, processed food, and your precious Range Rover.

gizmo3• 17 years ago

Maybe it's much simpler than that. When people hear the word scientist, they think "men in white lab coats". If that's what they think scientists are, then all the responses make some sort of sense.

The depressing thing is that people who believe in conspiracy theories are generally reasonably smart people, who have nuanced opinions on a lot of topics, and are often well educated. In order to believe in a conspiracy theory you have to have at least a passing understanding of whatever accepted truth it is you don't believe in. That puts those people leagues ahead of the ignorant-and-proud-of-it.

Robin_Message• 17 years ago

I'd agree that science has a positive impact, but you need to subtract the atomic bomb, climate change and I dunno, processed food (others may have different examples) from any positive impact to work out the net impact.

gizmo3• 17 years ago

The gross impact equals the net impact, because the pluses are so big. That was exactly the point I was making. Without science we'd have nothing.

The atom bomb and global warming are peanuts compared to the upside of science. So there's no subtraction to be made.

biohacker422• 17 years ago

... finds that some of science's conclusions are widely mistrusted, and hints at a widening partisan divide.

Obviously. Lets face it, the majority of kids don't actually think through and convince themselves of everything they are thought.

Partly because kids are like little fact sponges for facts that come from adult authority. And partly because they don't have to think to pass exams.

The earth goes around the sun. Sure thing Mr. Teacher, I can see the sun going around the earth but I still believe what ever you say. And that's not fake, that's really how it works most of the time. I'd guess only about 15% or less actually think it through.

But now in some regions, for some groups there are competing authorities and they say the earth is 6000 years old. Sure Mr. Preacher, what ever you say.

Fact is, public education is a mass product, a government provided mass product/service. It's crap. More often then not we get smart kids despite public school, not because of it. What public school does reasonably well is teach you the three Rs. You want anything more? Educate yourself.

Solutions:

1. Improve, and I mean really improve, public education in this union of states which covers most of a continent.

2. Do nothing. Wait for this strange modern day cult of anti-Darwinists to run its course and peter out.

3. Give them more rope to hang themselves. Radically shrink the size and role of the feds and increase the economic competition between the states.

Problems:

1. Extremely difficult will take centuries.

3. Counter to the strong natural tendency of governments to grow and grow and grow.

2. Requires no effort - is most likely scenario.

A humble suggestion. Stop trying to save the anto-evolutionists from themselves. Why not ignore these real life trolls? Please point out where they are doing real world damage that matters? And no, it hurts (their) kids is not something you can help with.

ori_b• 17 years ago

> it hurts (their) kids is not something you can help with.

The problem is that it's not just their kids that it hurts. It affects the textbooks and lesson plans of schools across the state and country (especially since Texas more or less dictates what goes into high school textbooks).

If it only hurt their children, I would still be disturbed - I don't think children should be punished for the failings of their parents - but I would be less concerned about it. But it doesn't just hurt their children. It hurts everyone's children, and undermines the innovation economy that the USA has built. Our largest export is brains and ideas - we don't manufacture all that much in the USA anymore. We should be doing what we can to protect our most important resource - our education.

biohacker422• 17 years ago

especially since Texas more or less dictates what goes into high school textbooks

Only as long as Texas doesn't go too far out there and the parents in other states are not too involved with school.

If Texas really goes out on a limb, and you have parents in say Vermont very actively engaged with their kids' school, I bet we can finally split the market and get Texas & Co. off our backs.

And that is better for everyone (except kids in Texas) and also more likely then us being able to pull Texas towards reason.

If it only hurt their children, I would still be disturbed

Sure, but how can you help someone else's child? How could the government rescue children from their parents? I don't see any way in a non-creepy world.

And as far as America's innovative edge goes, the US or key parts of it, still produce amazing discoveries, and they do it with a lot of immigrants. It would be nice if we added more home grown brains, but that's all it would be: nice.

yummyfajitas• 17 years ago

I don't see why you assume it is anti-Darwinists. I suspect a sizable fraction of that 16% are other anti-scientific types.

There are the "science gave us nukes and pollution" environmentalists, the medical anti-science types (vaccines -> autism, acupuncture, homeopathy, naturopathy), and some even weirder types.

I've had people express anti-scientific views to me while extolling the virtues of this product:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laundry_ball

nice1• 17 years ago

I think scientists are partly responsible for their loss of credibility by bowing to leftist pressure and endorsing slogans like "global warming", "global cooling", "the population bomb" and other such nonsense.

Retric3• 17 years ago

The problem is how the media presents science.

When 1 whack job PDH with 3 assistants and a new theory is given just as much air time if not more as what 100,000 PHD's think on the average story people can't tell what the trends really are. It's a breaking story when Bubba and his 6 month study of 50 people says soda might cause or prevent cancer, but it is old news by the time the results of a 10 year 50,000 people study disprove that link.

Locke16892• 17 years ago

I looked up "the population bomb"[1] and it seems to be another Malthusian crisis book. The funny thing is that you criticize scientists for this. Ehrlich is an entomologist. The Wikipedia article states that demographers and a large section of the scientific community widely panned the book. Honestly, if you get your view of the scientific community from Neil Cavuto on Fox News, you're kidding yourself into believing that you're actually getting science.

Similarly, pick up any recent scientific publication on climatology. Now, notice that there are no slogans. Instead, there are peer reviewed studies which present hypothesis, experiments, and conclusions. True science is not "political," and if you believe it is then you are simply the byproduct of the media. Scientists themselves say that the media doesn't cover science well -- so perhaps you shouldn't judge scientific opinions based on it?

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb

jpwagner• 17 years ago

This response is solid, however I don't think the OP suggested that "True science is political." (Although it's hard to tell when people don't express themselves clearly.)

There have been many scientists to have admitted that they have kept their mouth shut when they oppose the status quo for fear of losing jobs or failing to gain funding. The concept of "a few bad apples" is certainly not new.

tel• 17 years ago

Did the Ars rewrite add anything to the Pew Report besides some thin speculation and ambiguous wording? No wonder scientists don't like journalists.

rjprins• 17 years ago

It's not so much as adding, as making it readable and interesting.

calcnerd256• 17 years ago

If the scientific community's portrayal in the media only tells the story of one side of a controversial issue, that is going to make the public think that the entire community agrees with that stance. How often are things portrayed as "scientific fact" or some other such when they are still widely debated within the scientific community? Each of those issues erodes the public's trust of the entire community, even those that are adamantly declaring, "We don't know yet" about the issue.

The public trusts scientists—but not their conclusions

Related Stories